guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#state-of-mayflower-v-inciples
This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-inciples channel.
shah
shah 2025-01-11 08:01 p.m.
## CR-0057-25 State of Mayflower v. Inciples
shah
shah 2025-01-11 08:01 p.m.
What is your ROBLOX username?
Chickem_Temdie
List the defendant(s)
Inciples
List the criminal charges
1.M.S.C § 1302 - Felony Misconduct (Count 1);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Obstruction of Justice (Count 2);
1.M.S.C § 2101- First-degree Murder (Count 3);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Involuntary Manslaughter (Count 4);
1.M.S.C § 1312- Involuntary Manslaught...
Labels
Criminal
shah
shah 2025-01-11 08:02 p.m.
@Krispy Chicken Tender @Awesome
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-16 03:21 a.m.
@Awesome your honor, summons?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
@Awesome your honor, summons?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-16 03:51 a.m.
My apologies, as I explained in another matter, I’ve only recently got a new monitor, and have been getting used to it.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-16 03:52 a.m.
:👍🏻:
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-16 03:54 a.m.
I’ll rule on PC and then issue a summons, if appropriate, shortly.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-18 03:50 a.m.
@Awesome Your honor?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
@Awesome Your honor?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-18 05:18 a.m.
Today or tomorrow.
AwesomeAwesome
Today or tomorrow.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-19 10:33 p.m.
Any updates on the ruling?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Any updates on the ruling?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-19 10:46 p.m.
It’ll be today, as I indicated above (for me, that msg was like 4h from a different day, which was the day I had in mind)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-19 10:50 p.m.
Yea
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-20 08:13 a.m.
Right, so, there's two problems: (1) the AOPC is not notarized, and (2) intent transfers, rendering 1.M.S.C § 1312 nonapplicable (since it, by definition, requires "no intent to kill").
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-20 08:13 a.m.
@Krispy Chicken Tender I'll find PC as to all remaining counts, though, unless the State first wishes to remedy those defects.(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-20 11:46 a.m.
Will remedy. I’ll send new documents by end of day
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-21 06:17 p.m.
The filing website just will not work with me for some reason, but here is remedied versions of aopc and ci

cc: @Awesome @shah
(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-22 12:30 a.m.
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All parties are notified that a Mayflower State Magistrate Judge has been appointed to handle all pretrial matters, except those prohibited by 5 M.S.C. 1 §§ 2203.1, et seq., in the above-captioned matter.

@AdamC_2001 will be the presiding Magistrate Judge, while @Awesome is the supervising District Court Judge.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender
(edited)
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-22 12:30 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @AdamC_2001 to the case channel.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
The filing website just will not work with me for some reason, but here is remedied versions of aopc and ci cc: @Awesome @shah(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-22 11:11 a.m.
cc: @AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:14 p.m.
Greetings Gents
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:43 p.m.
@Krispy Chicken Tender You around
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-22 08:45 p.m.
No
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.
Right well I find Probable Cause on;
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.
(A) 1.M.S.C §1302 Felony misconduct on ONE count,
(B) 1.M.S.C §1312 Obstruction of justice on ONE count,
(C) 1.M.S.C §2101 First-degree murder on ONE count;
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:48 p.m.
I do not find Probable Cause on;
1.M.S.C §2103 Voluntary manslaughter on TWO counts
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.
Due to Transferred Intent Doctrine I do not find Probable Cause
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.
So you have two options
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.
Either drip Voluntary Manslaughter or amend your APOC one more time and if still no PC I'll order the charges dismissal.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-22 08:51 p.m.
drop*
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Either drip Voluntary Manslaughter or amend your APOC one more time and if still no PC I'll order the charges dismissal.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 02:32 a.m.
Drop the two specified charges right? If no pc is found(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 03:21 a.m.
Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing

cc: @AdamC_2001
(edited)
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Drop the two specified charges right? If no pc is found(edited)
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 12:49 p.m.
Yes
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 12:49 p.m.
Ok great I’ll review this
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 01:43 p.m.
Probable Cause is established on all counts @Krispy Chicken Tender
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 01:43 p.m.
It's time to summon the defendant.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 07:32 p.m.
@Krispy Chicken Tender Do you have a summons drafted
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-23 07:32 p.m.
I'm going to work i'll send it when I get back
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-23 07:34 p.m.
Ensure it does soon we don't want to keep the case waiting for ages.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-24 02:09 a.m.
cc: @AdamC_2001
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
cc: @AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:24 p.m.
Great
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-24 12:24 p.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @Honoripedia to the case channel.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
Awesome I believe you gotta sign it
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
Oh, it didn’t have my signature automatically affixed.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
That’s annoying.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
yea
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
Normally it should.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
cc: @AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:25 p.m.
Edit the date and have awesomes name signed
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:26 p.m.
then send again
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
then send again
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-24 12:26 p.m.
Nah, I’ll do it myself.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-24 12:27 p.m.
Ok
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-24 12:48 p.m.
cc: @Sheriff of Clark County
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-24 02:59 p.m.
Sorry didn’t know how to add the signature affix pay
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-25 01:30 a.m.
CCSO issued summons but defendant didn't have their dms opened
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-25 01:32 a.m.
Good
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-25 01:33 a.m.
We can hopefully get arraignment done by this weekend.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-25 05:54 a.m.
He might get banned before that happens
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-25 07:24 a.m.
Defendant was served by Solarlabs, a Deputy of the Clark County Sheriff's Office. He acknowledged the summons, and has since ignored it; as such, a continuous warrant for his arrest has been issued, ordering that he brought before a Mayflower District or Magistrate Judge.

cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender @AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:16 a.m.
Right
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:16 a.m.
Him failure to show will result in a court appointed attorney.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 01:17 a.m.
He has until Sunday at 5pm EST to appear or will be held in absentia and a Public Defender will be appointed
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 03:37 a.m.
@AdamC_2001 Your honor, the defendant is currently in a holding cell at mpd in biggest server(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 03:37 a.m.
Due to the AW
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Due to the AW
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-26 03:55 a.m.
Is he still in custody?
AwesomeAwesome
Is he still in custody?
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 04:02 a.m.
I left the server already, mpd should have sentenced him at this point
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-26 04:03 a.m.
Otherwise they didn't or he ltaad
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Otherwise they didn't or he ltaad
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-26 04:04 a.m.
They were booked, I believe.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-26 04:05 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @Inciples to the case channel.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.
@Inciples, for the avoidance of any doubt, you are not permitted to (1) at any point during the pendency of this matter, leave the server; or (2) fail to appear before the Court as ordered. Do either and a continuous warrant for your arrest will (again) be issued; the Court also reserves the right to impose sanctions as it deems fit and proper.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.
@AdamC_2001 All yours.
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-26 04:10 a.m.
Hello
InciplesInciples
Hello
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:13 a.m.
Hello Mr.Inciples do you have an attorney
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-26 11:24 a.m.
Sup
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Hello Mr.Inciples do you have an attorney
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-26 11:24 a.m.
Nope
InciplesInciples
Nope
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:31 a.m.
Do you want an opportunity to find someone or do you just want a public defender
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-26 11:32 a.m.
I would like to seek one
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:33 a.m.
Very well you may find one but do not take forever
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 11:34 a.m.
Once you've found one ping me who it is and he/she will get placed into this case channel.
InciplesInciples
I would like to seek one
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-26 04:08 p.m.
Any luck?
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-26 11:19 p.m.
I need a public defender
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.
Very well
InciplesInciples
I need a public defender
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.
There’s some law firms you can find to help with criminal defense
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:51 a.m.
But I can get you a PD too they’re decent themselves
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 12:54 a.m.
so you going with a pd?
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-27 01:21 a.m.
Yes
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:42 a.m.
ok
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:04 a.m.
@Inciples I got you a public defender @leoisnoob
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-27 02:05 a.m.
Thanks
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:06 a.m.
Hello your Honor
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.
Mr.Davie is to represent the defendant in this criminal matter
cc @Krispy Chicken Tender @Awesome
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.
Let's get a plan for arraignment
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:07 a.m.
What works for both parties
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Let's get a plan for arraignment
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:10 a.m.
preferably over discord, i start school again tmrw so will have reduced activity
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:10 a.m.
@Inciples are you able to add me sir
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-27 02:12 a.m.
Ok
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:17 a.m.
@AdamC_2001 Have we done PC
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.
yes
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.
pc is established
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.
Can I request a hearing on that
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.
Bruh
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:18 a.m.
The Prosecutor is citing Californian case law in his charging document
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.
Which frankly has no relevance in this jurisdiction
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.
Can we get a hearing on probable cause @AdamC_2001
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:19 a.m.
Before he's arraigned
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 02:24 a.m.
Citing outside of state laws is considered persuasive authority which can be used to support their reasoning of charges the courts are not bound to follow it but it gives insight. If you wish to have a PC hearing I'll gladly ensure fair game with the State.
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Citing outside of state laws is considered persuasive authority which can be used to support their reasoning of charges the courts are not bound to follow it but it gives insight. ...
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-27 02:28 a.m.
The senate has legislated what intent is which means that Californian common law can't be applied
The Defendant's intent must be directed toward the actual victim in question, and there is no legal basis under Mayflower law to transfer intent from the intended target to a bystander.
leoisnoobleoisnoob
The senate has legislated what intent is which means that Californian common law can't be applied The Defendant's intent must be directed toward the actual victim in question, and...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-27 10:19 a.m.
Alright, (1) transferred intent is well entrenched in common law, and dates back to as early as 1576, in which it was said, “[I]t is every man’s business to foresee what wrong[s] or mischief may happen from that which he does with an ill intention, and it shall be no excuse for him to say that he intended to kill another, and not the person killed, for if a man of malice prepense shoots an arrow at another with an intent to kill him, and a person to whom he bore no malice is killed by it, this shall be murder in him[.]” R. v. Saunders, 2 Plow 473, 475 (1576); and (2) it is beyond dispute that, where common law doctrines are well-established, “courts may take it as a given that [the legislative branch] has legislated with an expectation that the common law principle will apply,” Astoria Fed. Sav. Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991), absent “clear and explicit” statutory cues to the contrary. Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake Potomac Telephone Co. of Va., 464 U.S. 30, 35–36 (1983).(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-27 10:25 a.m.
I’ll leave it up to @AdamC_2001 whether a probable cause hearing should be held, but any contention that transferred intent, as a common law doctrine, does not govern, is simply misplaced.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:26 p.m.
After further review I'm standing on my decision to establish probable cause. We will move to arraignment.
@leoisnoob @Krispy Chicken Tender
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-27 01:30 p.m.
When is both parties available to have arraignment?
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-27 05:50 p.m.
Tonight maybe
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-27 10:11 p.m.
Defense and I are still discussing potential terms
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
When is both parties available to have arraignment?
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 04:44 a.m.
I believe we've come to an agreement so whenever he's drafted that up we can discuss scheduling arraignment
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, (1) transferred intent is well entrenched in common law, and dates back to as early as 1576, in which it was said, “[I]t is every man’s business to foresee what wrong[...(edited)
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 05:02 a.m.
Your Honor, you're citing British precedent from the 16th century, it isn't binding in this Court
leoisnoobleoisnoob
Your Honor, you're citing British precedent from the 16th century, it isn't binding in this Court
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 05:09 a.m.
It is persuasive authority; however, the Court finds no basis to deviate from the conclusion of every court to have considered the issue.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing cc: @AdamC_2001(edited)
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 06:40 a.m.
Motion to dismiss counts 4 and 5 of the Information
CC: @Awesome @AdamC_2001 @Krispy Chicken Tender

I would also like to assert my client's right to a speedy trial, and therefore ask that no further amendments of the Information be permitted. The State has submitted 3 CIs in total, allowing more and more superseding indictments risks a violation of my client's 6th amendment rights.

(I'm not sure how PC was established, this is a blatant error and should not have been allowed to proceed from the start)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 06:53 a.m.
I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequivocally states that, “[a]fter notice to the defendant, a matter of form or substance in an information may be amended at any time before the date the trial on the merits commences,” subject only to the leave of the Court, unless, over the defendant’s objection, the amended information “charges the defendant with an additional or different offense[,] or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced.” Mayfl. R. Crim. P. 7(5)(3).
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 06:54 a.m.
cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender / @leoisnoob @Inciples / @AdamC_2001
AwesomeAwesome
I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 06:56 a.m.
It’s a typo, as the AOPC makes clear.
AwesomeAwesome
I’ll dismiss the duplicative counts, but I’ll deny your request that “no further amendments of the [Criminal] Information be permitted;” Mayfl R. Crim. P. 7(5)(1) plainly and unequ...
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:07 a.m.
"or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced"; the State has had ample time between when the case was filed and now. They have filed 3 separate superseding CIs in total. Allowing more is just going to extend this case more and more and will start to impede on my clients constitutional rights. This would not have been an issue if the State had just gotten it right from the start.
AwesomeAwesome
It’s a typo, as the AOPC makes clear.
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:07 a.m.
I disagree. There are 2 entire charges that are falsified. It is not merely a typo
leoisnoobleoisnoob
I disagree. There are 2 entire charges that are falsified. It is not merely a typo
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:11 a.m.
That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”
AwesomeAwesome
That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:11 a.m.
The AOPC makes this plain.
leoisnoobleoisnoob
"or if the substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced"; the State has had ample time between when the case was filed and now. They have filed 3 separate superseding CIs in ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:13 a.m.
I’m not going to enter an order barring amendments, no matter how insubstantial, simply because you proffer that, in your view, further amendments “risk[] a violation of your client’s [constitutional] rights.”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:14 a.m.
You can, of course, object to an amended information, as the rules prescribe.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
I’m not going to enter an order barring amendments, no matter how insubstantial, simply because you proffer that, in your view, further amendments “risk[] a violation of your clien...
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:17 a.m.
Would you not agree with me that if the State continues to file superseding charging instruments that the idea of a fair and speedy trial comes into question?
leoisnoobleoisnoob
Would you not agree with me that if the State continues to file superseding charging instruments that the idea of a fair and speedy trial comes into question?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.
I agree that it can be raised, but I’m not entering an order preemptively, without knowing the degree of the amendment(s).(edited)
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.
Understood
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:18 a.m.
Thank you your honor
leoisnoob
leoisnoob 2025-01-28 07:21 a.m.
Just an update for you @Awesome - the Prosecutor and myself are in communication regarding a plea deal however not sure how the dismissal of the two charges will impact on that process
leoisnoobleoisnoob
Just an update for you @Awesome - the Prosecutor and myself are in communication regarding a plea deal however not sure how the dismissal of the two charges will impac...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 07:23 a.m.
Alright. Keep the Court updated.
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 02:39 p.m.
@Awesome @AdamC_2001
I have found a much more suitable lawyer to aid me in my case
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 02:40 p.m.
And therefore I would like to dismiss the public defender
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:41 p.m.
And who would that be.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:42 p.m.
I can assure you the Public Defenders office is filled with decent attorneys dont let the name and irl rep fool you.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:42 p.m.
And arnt you in the mist of a plea deal?>
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 02:47 p.m.
I want my counsel of choice
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
And who would that be.
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 02:49 p.m.
@impactiii
InciplesInciples
@impactiii
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:51 p.m.
Okay per the 6th amendment you have the right for counsel for assistance. Next time make it clear you wanted someone from private practice before wanting a Public Defender.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:53 p.m.
@leoisnoob Your client has let you go. Thank you for assisting and picking up this case. God bless.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 02:54 p.m.
Defense are we still attempting for a deal or we moving on to arraignment?
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @impactiii to the case channel.
AwesomeAwesome used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has removed @leoisnoob from the case channel.
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 02:59 p.m.
Thank you
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:00 p.m.
I did that already lol
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:00 p.m.
But it's okay
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
But it's okay
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:01 p.m.
Oh, I wasn’t aware; I prefer @clerkFlow because it logs the change.(edited)
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:01 p.m.
Oh ok
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:02 p.m.
I'll use it next time
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:03 p.m.
TAKE NOTICE

The defendant has fired his Public Defender and moved to hire Mr.Sadoimpacto and has filed his NOA before the court.

cc @Krispy Chicken Tender
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Okay per the 6th amendment you have the right for counsel for assistance. Next time make it clear you wanted someone from private practice before wanting a Public Defender.
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 03:04 p.m.
My apologies
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:12 p.m.
@Awesome Afternoon. Was there an SI filed on this case? Also, who is the prosecutor?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:13 p.m.
@AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:14 p.m.
Chickem_Temdie is the SA
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
Chickem_Temdie is the SA
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:14 p.m.
And was there a superseding information filed?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Refiling documents, website doesn't work because this was done before that was a thing cc: @AdamC_2001(edited)
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:15 p.m.
This is the only information he offered at this time.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:15 p.m.
I see at least one count was dismissed
impactiiiimpactiii
I see at least one count was dismissed
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:16 p.m.
Two duplicative counts, on the motion of the previous counselor, were dismissed; however, it is worth noting that they were only duplicative because of a typo.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
That’s fine. Counts 4 and 5 relate to the alleged killings of “32a” and “BlackMinghetti,” respectively; the CI mistakenly refers to both of those individuals as “JaroCycle.”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:16 p.m.
.
AwesomeAwesome
Two duplicative counts, on the motion of the previous counselor, were dismissed; however, it is worth noting that they were only duplicative because of a typo.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:21 p.m.
So Counts 4 and 5 are dismissed?
impactiiiimpactiii
So Counts 4 and 5 are dismissed?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:23 p.m.
Well, they’re duplicative due to a typo, so yes, but that doesn’t preclude future amendment or a SI.
AwesomeAwesome
Well, they’re duplicative due to a typo, so yes, but that doesn’t preclude future amendment or a SI.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
Okay. What are the deadlines for pretrial?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
And discovery
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
Are we past PC?
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
We havent gotten to arraignment yet
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
Waive and enter plea of not guilty
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
Do you want it in writing?
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:24 p.m.
yes please
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:26 p.m.
WAIVER OF DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE AT ARRAIGNMENT AND ENTRY OF NOT GUILTY PLEA
CC: @AdamC_2001 @Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-28 03:27 p.m.
I’m in class I’ll respond in a few hours
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:31 p.m.
@AdamC_2001 My ask is a 10-day pretrial window, mandatory disclosure of discovery materials within five days, a two-day deadline for filing amendments to the information, and an immediate Brady/Giglio order requiring disclosure of all relevant evidence.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:32 p.m.
There's nothing to respond to and as such the court grants the defense's waive of arraignment and enters a plea of Not Guilty on all charges.
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.
@Inciples Do you as the defendant agree to waive your arraignment?
Inciples
Inciples 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.
Yes
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.
Very well
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.
Not Guilty is entered on all counts
impactiiiimpactiii
@AdamC_2001 My ask is a 10-day pretrial window, mandatory disclosure of discovery materials within five days, a two-day deadline for filing amendments to the information,...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:33 p.m.
I'm sure you understand the second part because it is such a pain where they literally wait until the last minute to disclose everything
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:40 p.m.
PAPERLESS ORDER GOVERNING PRETRIAL AND DISCOVERY

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, barring extension for good cause or other unforeseen delay:
- (1) the pre-trial window will close Friday, February 7, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago;
- (2) in accordance with Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(8), pre-trial motions will be due forty-eight (48) hours prior to the close of the pretrial window;
- (3) a pre-trial conference is scheduled for Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago, prior to which the parties shall disclose a draft of the exhibits and witnesses, if any, that they intend to rely on;
- (4) on or before Wednesday, February 5, 2025 at 3:40 p.m., 5 months ago, the State shall disclose to the defense any undisclosed material deemed exculpatory or potentially exculpatory — that is, evidence that favors the defendant or casts doubt on the State's case — pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
- The State is reminded that this obligation is continuing in nature, as per Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987), and failure to disclose Brady material in a timely manner may incur consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of evidence, dismissal of the information, and sanctions;
- (5) motions in limine are due seventy-two (72) hours prior to trial, with any oppositions due twenty-four (24) hours thereafter; and
- (6) trial briefs, if any, are due forty-eight (48) hours prior to trial.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @Inciples / @Krispy Chicken Tender / @AdamC_2001
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:42 p.m.
A trial date will be set at or after the pre-trial conference.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:42 p.m.
SI deadline?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-28 03:43 p.m.
24 or 48 hour preferably so I have time to review substance
impactiiiimpactiii
SI deadline?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:44 p.m.
That’s a separate order, but those will be due, unless good cause is shown, on or before Friday, January 31, 2025 at 3:40 p.m..
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-28 03:49 p.m.
I’ll turn it back over to @AdamC_2001 now.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
krabz pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:00 a.m.
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY
CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:00 a.m.
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE
CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:01 a.m.
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:01 a.m.
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE AND TWO FOR FAILURE TO CHARGE CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE OFFENSES
CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-29 03:12 a.m.
Will send responses based on the judge's approval of motions
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 10:35 a.m.
PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON SIXTH AMENDMENT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Defendant’s Motion rehashes, verbatim, arguments severally rejected prior by this Court, see, e.g., State of Mayflower v. nexuvz, No. CR-0032-24, Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Mayfl. Dist. Ct. 2024). Defendant posits that he has a right to a jury trial, but ignores both the operational, logistical realities of a “R[oblox] community like ours,” State of Mayflower v. TrexeoDev, No. 01-08, 12 (Mayfl. Sup. Ct. 2024) (Cabot, J., dissenting), and countervailing precedent, such as Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 69 (1970), which held that a defendant has a right to trial by jury only “where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized.”

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY: ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Violation of the Sixth Amendment be, and it hereby is, DENIED IN FULL.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Mersea, Mayflower, January 30, 2024.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @Inciples / @Krispy Chicken Tender / @AdamC_2001
(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 10:36 a.m.
3 more to go
impactiiiimpactiii
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 10:45 a.m.
@Awesome Am I able to ask for arguments on this one?
impactiiiimpactiii
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON SUPREMACY CLAUSE IMMUNITY CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.
You haven’t prima facie demonstrated that the conduct leading to the state charge was within the Defendant’s scope of his official duties, and in your own motion, you acknowledge that an officer is not immune if he acts with criminal intent or malice, both of which are alleged here.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.
I replied to a different one
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 10:53 a.m.
Not to the one you’re talking about
impactiiiimpactiii
I replied to a different one
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 10:54 a.m.
No, I’m trying to understand how it is that you believe that the Defendant’s actions are immune from prosecution in state courts.(edited)
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome Am I able to ask for arguments on this one?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 10:54 a.m.
I’ll review this shortly.
AwesomeAwesome
No, I’m trying to understand how it is that you believe that the Defendant’s actions are immune from prosecution in state courts.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 10:59 a.m.
Intent isn’t relevant to the immunity inquiry. Even if it was, it wouldn’t matter. Did Deputy Marshal Neagle mean to kill David Terry? Yes. Did Lou Horiuchi mean to kill Vicki Weaver? Yes. Both of those cases were dismissed in state court. And Inciples did so while acting under authority of federal law (just like Deputy Neagle and Horiuchi)—which the information recognizes and repeats over and over. It literally explicitly references that he was acting under color of federal law at the time he “committed” those offenses and did so in the interest of furthering his authority as a federal law enforcement officer
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:01 a.m.
Neagle was also charged with murder
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:01 a.m.
Which, as you said to me, also alleges intent and malice
impactiiiimpactiii
Intent isn’t relevant to the immunity inquiry. Even if it was, it wouldn’t matter. Did Deputy Marshal Neagle mean to kill David Terry? Yes. Did Lou Horiuchi mean to kill Vicki Weav...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:02 a.m.
In your own motion, you posit otherwise.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:02 a.m.
AwesomeAwesome
Click to see attachment.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:04 a.m.
You need to read further. I clearly delineate between allegations in the information as to what is “malice and criminal intent” versus what he actually did which was furthering the interests of federal law enforcement and acting under color of federal law. That’s where the immunity inquiry comes in
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:04 a.m.
Even if they allege malice, like they did in Neagle’s case, if he did so to further federal policy then he is immune
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.
That’s the question
impactiiiimpactiii
You need to read further. I clearly delineate between allegations in the information as to what is “malice and criminal intent” versus what he actually did which was furthering the...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.
You haven’t prima facie demonstrated that the conduct leading to the state charge was within the Defendant’s scope of his official duties.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:05 a.m.
My point was in tandem w/ this.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:06 a.m.
Well what would you need to demonstrate that
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:06 a.m.
The information itself recognizes he was in the scope of his duties at the time
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:07 a.m.
So even the State doesn’t contest that fact
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:07 a.m.
If he was off-duty… and just walked around shooting people on the sidewalk. Then sure. This wouldn’t be a question at all
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.
But he was actively in his role as a federal law enforcement officer and furthering federal policy
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.
As the state itself recognizes
impactiiiimpactiii
So even the State doesn’t contest that fact
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:08 a.m.
Counselor, let me get this straight: you are suggesting that your client was acting “in furtherance of his federal duties” when he is alleged to have shot a suspect, one of his employees, to break them out of state custody?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:09 a.m.
and the officer, no less.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:09 a.m.
The whole point of the immunity inquiry under the supremacy clause is to shield federal officers from fear of retaliation by state officials
impactiiiimpactiii
The whole point of the immunity inquiry under the supremacy clause is to shield federal officers from fear of retaliation by state officials
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:10 a.m.
You still haven’t shown that the conduct leading to the state charges was within the scope or in furtherance of his federal duties.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.
He was trying to free his subordinate from state custody who, by the way, should’ve been shielded from any state action as well
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.
He had the authority to do that
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:12 a.m.
.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:13 a.m.
It sounds ridiculous but that’s literally the law. Neagle is a ridiculous case. But that’s the law. With due respect, this case doesn’t belong in state court
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.
Who imagined a Deputy Marshal would get away with murdering a state Chief Justice lol?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.
But that’s what the law says. Because Neagle did so in the furtherance of his federal duties
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.
Just as Inciples
impactiiiimpactiii
But that’s what the law says. Because Neagle did so in the furtherance of his federal duties
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:14 a.m.
You still haven’t identified what federal duty he was acting in furtherance of.
AwesomeAwesome
You still haven’t shown that the conduct leading to the state charges was within the scope or in furtherance of his federal duties.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:15 a.m.
As here.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:17 a.m.
To protect his colleagues from the deterrence of state officials within the scope of his responsibilities as Chief Postal Inspector. And again, the information does not contest that he was acting within the scope of his federal duties
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:17 a.m.
They actually allege that he was acting within that scope
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.
When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the stage alleges that he was acting within the scope of his federal duties is accepted as true.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.
Anything else is reserved for trial
impactiiiimpactiii
When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the sta...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:18 a.m.
the state*
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:19 a.m.
All factual rebutting and analysis is reserved for trial
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.
Questions of law, like this one, are reserved for pretrial
impactiiiimpactiii
When reviewing the record at this stage, this court is not allowed to look deeper than the allegations in the informations. Everything is accepted as true. So the fact that the sta...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.
.
impactiiiimpactiii
They actually allege that he was acting within that scope
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:20 a.m.
No, they allege that he exceeded the scope of his duties — hence the charge for Felony Misconduct.
AwesomeAwesome
No, they allege that he exceeded the scope of his duties — hence the charge for Felony Misconduct.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:22 a.m.
Even then, the effect of that is curtailed by the fact that they allege he was acting under federal authority. And I have reservations about applying state-law peace officer regulations to a federal official who is not governed by those regulations
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:22 a.m.
That would’ve been my next question
impactiiiimpactiii
Even then, the effect of that is curtailed by the fact that they allege he was acting under federal authority. And I have reservations about applying state-law peace officer regula...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:23 a.m.
Again, you haven’t identified what federal authority he was acting under.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:24 a.m.
Without that, I’m having a hard time seeing your Motion as anything but borderline frivolous.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:25 a.m.
His authority as a postal inspector. Do you want statutes? I’d also like to note that there is a recognized discretionary authority in these cases when it comes to their authorities
impactiiiimpactiii
His authority as a postal inspector. Do you want statutes? I’d also like to note that there is a recognized discretionary authority in these cases when it comes to their authoritie...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:26 a.m.
Yes, but the test is whether he was acting in furtherance of his federal duties when the conduct leading to the state charges occurred.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:27 a.m.
Give me an example of what you would consider furthering that, and I can work with it. We’re just not on the same page
impactiiiimpactiii
Give me an example of what you would consider furthering that, and I can work with it. We’re just not on the same page
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:27 a.m.
I am having a hard time seeing how it is a federal employee’s duty to allegedly take the law into his own hands and break his subordinate out of state custody.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:28 a.m.
If your client believed that he was being unlawfully held, he could submit a motion for habeas corpus, no?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:28 a.m.
They weren’t supposed to have arrested his subordinate anyway. They were interfering with a federal mission.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.
He was not obliged to consider any state law barring him from doing so
impactiiiimpactiii
They weren’t supposed to have arrested his subordinate anyway. They were interfering with a federal mission.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.
And what federal mission would that be?
AwesomeAwesome
And what federal mission would that be?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.
Furthering the law enforcement duties of the postal inspection service. Need I provide examples?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:29 a.m.
They were there on federal mission
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 11:30 a.m.
Let’s put that aside for a moment — even if his subordinate was being “unlawfully arrested,” how is it your client’s job to allegedly forcefully break them out of state custody?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:45 a.m.
Because they were interfering with the federal mission. Did Lou Horiuchi want to kill Vicki Weaver? No, but he did so because she was interfering with a federal law enforcement operation. And he did so with the intent to kill her. But that case was dismissed in state court for the very reason this one should be as well: Inciples cannot be prosecuted in State court under Supremacy Clause immunity.

Federal law enforcement officers have a duty to protect other federal employees—including federal law enforcement—and that duty extends to their affirmative duty to intervene to prevent abuse of power by other law enforcement officers (even the state law enforcement officers should’ve acted to stop the arrest of the postal inspector), especially here when the state was attempting to curtail a federal mission.

We have seen similar scenarios to this one in post-civil war history where swaths state militias arrested federal troops merely for acting under federal authority. Those troops had to be “broken out.” The same followed when in the early 1900s, Mississippi arrested several internal revenue agents only for the U.S. Marshals to “break them out.” Observance of state law is not required of federal agents when acting under federal authority, which, I will say again, is exactly what the State avers to in their information. They do not contest Inciples was acting under color of federal law. And that allegation is accepted as true at this stage—no factual rebutting may be brought against it until trial.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:46 a.m.
swaths of*
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 11:51 a.m.
And federal agents aren’t required to observe state law when on federal mission. Clearly no one contests being on the postal inspector team counts as being on federal mission—if we want to get technical
impactiiiimpactiii
Because they were interfering with the federal mission. Did Lou Horiuchi want to kill Vicki Weaver? No, but he did so because she was interfering with a federal law enforcement o...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:02 p.m.
Ok, so, Idaho v. Horiuchi was reversed en banc by the Ninth Circuit, whom noted that “materials questions of fact [were] in dispute which, if resolved against [the defendant][,] would strip him of immunity.” 253 F.3d 359, 374 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), vacated as moot en banc, 266 F.3d 979.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:06 p.m.
I’m going to deny the Motion, at this stage, because (1) you have failed to identify, with particularity, what federal duty your client was acting in furtherance of when the conduct occasioning the state charge took place, and (2) there are material questions of fact in dispute which, if resolved against your client, would strip him of immunity. Cf. Id. at 374.
AwesomeAwesome
Ok, so, Idaho v. Horiuchi was reversed en banc by the Ninth Circuit, whom noted that “materials questions of fact [were] in dispute which, if resolved against [the defendant][,...(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.
I don’t think you understand
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.
That’s the purpose of supremacy clause immunity
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:07 p.m.
It shields them from prosecution in state court even in Horiuchi’s case where the material facts were against him
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
That’s literally why I relied on it
impactiiiimpactiii
It shields them from prosecution in state court even in Horiuchi’s case where the material facts were against him
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
Uh, no, it doesn’t.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
The Ninth Circuit literally reversed.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
I have to ctrl + f that case when I get to my computer. But he never was convicted
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
Never went to trial
impactiiiimpactiii
I have to ctrl + f that case when I get to my computer. But he never was convicted
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:08 p.m.
Because.. the prosecutor dropped the charges.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:09 p.m.
Not because a court dismissed them.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:09 p.m.
Again, give me some time to go back and read it and I’ll answer that
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.
Wait you cited the wrong thing
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.
The ninth circuit affirmed the district court
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:10 p.m.
“We affirm”
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:11 p.m.
No, a three judge panel affirmed; the entire Circuit, en banc, reversed.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:11 p.m.
“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Horiuchi from prosecution because the criminal case sought to punish Horiuchi for actions taken in pursuit of his duties as a federal law enforcement officer. We affirm.”
impactiiiimpactiii
“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Hor...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.
Again, a three judge panel affirmed; the entire Circuit, en banc, reversed the panel.
impactiiiimpactiii
“Horiuchi removed the prosecution to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court dismissed the charge on the ground that the Supremacy Clause protected Hor...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.
That is the circuit court’s ruling though
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.
It’s at the very top
impactiiiimpactiii
That is the circuit court’s ruling though
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:12 p.m.
No, it’s a three judge panel’s.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.
Are you citing the 2001 case?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.
Correct.
impactiiiimpactiii
Are you citing the 2001 case?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:13 p.m.
2001 is in the citation.
AwesomeAwesome
2001 is in the citation.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:20 p.m.
That opinion was vacated later as moot but I’ll concede
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:20 p.m.
Meaning it’s basically dicta
impactiiiimpactiii
Meaning it’s basically dicta
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:21 p.m.
It’s still persuasive, either way.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:21 p.m.
It was the opinion of the Court en banc.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
It was the opinion of the Court en banc.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:22 p.m.
Moving to the other two?
AwesomeAwesome
I’m going to deny the Motion, at this stage, because (1) you have failed to identify, with particularity, what federal duty your client was acting in furtherance of when the conduc...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:23 p.m.
This remains the decision of the Court.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:25 p.m.
No I’m asking about the other two motions
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:25 p.m.
There’s 4
impactiiiimpactiii
There’s 4
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:26 p.m.
Oh, I’m going to wait for those remaining 2 to be briefed.
AwesomeAwesome
Oh, I’m going to wait for those remaining 2 to be briefed.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 12:31 p.m.
Deadline?
impactiiiimpactiii
Deadline?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:35 p.m.
As Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9).(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
As Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(9).(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:41 p.m.
So, on or before Friday, January 31, 2025 at 12:00 a.m., 5 months ago, but I’m inclined to grant an extension if the State requests such, due to the voluminous nature and depth of the two motions.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-29 12:42 p.m.
cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-29 12:49 p.m.
Ill have responses in by today
impactiiiimpactiii
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-29 01:00 p.m.
The appointment one is going to be interesting because there was a similar issue to this one raised where the real life U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel's "creation" (paralleled to our Public Integrity Office, because the special counsel fortunately does exist here by law, but not the PIO) was rejected because the statute "authorizing" it's creation was super broad—just like ours (we basically copy the same text of the irl DOJ statutes, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533)—and did not explicitly establish the Office of Special Counsel. Instead, the DOJ relied on it's own self-promulgated regulations which were created under Title 5 of the U.S. Code. But again, those are not the type of law that can create an office; they're internal regulations.

Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurring opinion in Trump v. United States shot down the authority of the Special Counsel, and Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the entirety of the Florida prosecution against Trump because of the OSC appointment issue. Judges and Justices have been fighting the OSC since the 1980s with Morrison v. Olson, although that one was pertinent to the Independent Counsel Act which expired in the 1990s. Still, Justice Thomas' concurrence worth a read if you have the time even outside of Mayflower.

While our appointments clause does not include the words "by Law" as the federal one does, it still follows that any government office must be created by law as was the intent of the Framers of the Federal Constitution (I reference this in a footnote). We must follow their intent by virtue of the Guarantee Clause (we are a Republic, i.e., separation of powers mandate only the Legislature can establish offices, departments, or agencies by law), and the fact that owe allegiance to the Union (Article I, Section 11 of our Constitution).
Awesome pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
Awesome pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:36 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-30 01:34 p.m.
@Awesome Do you want a reply, further arguments, or are you ready to proceed?
impactiiiimpactiii
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-30 02:02 p.m.
Should have attached this as an exhibit, but contrary to the State's assertion that the PIO exists under the OAG (which it is supposed to, per the Constitution and per the command of the MSC statutes governing the DOJ), the PIO exists as it's own outside office.
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome Do you want a reply, further arguments, or are you ready to proceed?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-01-30 11:33 p.m.
@Awesome
impactiiiimpactiii
@Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-30 11:37 p.m.
I haven't had time yet to review both of your motions & the State's responses; once I do so, I'll let you and the State know whether anything else is required.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-01-31 01:00 p.m.
MINUTE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On or before Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., 5 months ago, Counsel of Record for the State, Chickem_Tendie, is ORDERED to either (1) submit to the Court a certified copy of United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986), and to therein identify wherein the quote upon which he relies, that “[t]o persuade the courts to dismiss an indictment, a defendant must, at a minimum, show that the prosecution’s procedural error prejudiced him[,]” State’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Based on Defendant Appointments Clause, at 4, appears; or (2) SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed against him and so enter, for filing what appears to be, at first blush, a document substantially or entirely generated by generative artificial intelligence (GAI).

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii / @Krispy Chicken Tender
(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-01-31 08:13 p.m.
Disregard previous reply
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:32 a.m.
cc: @Awesome @impactiii
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
cc: @Awesome @impactiii
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 12:42 a.m.
Counselor, I suggest you stop lying.(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Click to see attachment.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.
A clerical error in the filed MTD response led to the accidental addition of quotation marks around the quote upon which the counsel of record relied.
(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 12:46 a.m.
This is a blatant lie.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 12:52 a.m.
Your honor, I ran the text through two ai detectors with varying, but similar results.
https://prnt.sc/5xlV0X3pcLfN
https://prnt.sc/PwV5RY-HgKzI
https://prnt.sc/LLhuW-bVw0ES
(edited)
Captured with Lightshot
Captured with Lightshot
Captured with Lightshot
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:02 a.m.
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom:
10:12 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski
[2] That’s a ChatGPT summary
[3] Those things aren’t direct quotes from the freaking case

10:13 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: [1] yea they literally aren't supposed to, i never make a new document when writing a response, just copy from the old one
[2] and if i'm not careful this happens

10:14 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] Broskiiiiiiiii
[2] Not bueno
Chickem_Temdie: I know but do you know what its like trying to create a whole new doc when you get out of class and maybe have to work a shift right after :😭:
sadoimpacto: We all know what it's like

10:15 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: I really need to work on my time management

10:16 AM AEST
tactical_pancakes: [1] I just wanna know how a ChatGPT summary
[2] Got quoted
[3] I don’t deny that things can get hectic

10:19 AM AEST
Chickem_Temdie: you litearlly (sic) have to rely on gpt for this class
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:04 a.m.
So, which is it: did you (1) forget to enclose a quote with quotation marks or (2) use generative artificial intelligence in whole or substantial part?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:08 a.m.
Your honor, I've completed the requirement to show a certified copy of US v. Mechanik and to identify wherein the quote upon which I relied upon. I do not understand what more is being asked of me. Therefore, I am requesting the substitution of attorney and will be filing a document to state such.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Your honor, I've completed the requirement to show a certified copy of US v. Mechanik and to identify wherein the quote upon which I relied upon. I do not understand what more is ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:09 a.m.
Counselor, I'm now ordering you to show cause why you should not be held in contempt. Making a mistake is one thing; lying in response to a show cause order is another.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:16 a.m.
Also, as a matter of record, Chickem_Temdie submitted a similar motion in another matter, replete with citations to bogus (fictitious) cases, https://canary.discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1333446691415789651/1334795572976287805, for which a similar order has been entered by the Chief Judge. https://canary.discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1333446691415789651/1335040817727013055(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:26 a.m.
Your honor, in regards to these messages, at no point did I mention I used or didn't use GAI to generate in whole or substantial part of this response. Having no sense for proof reading, I am relying on tools like grammarly in this case to ensure grammatical errors are mitigated and to ensure the tone of the document stays somewhat constant throughout. However, because I lack the necessary tools and personnel to do a full proof read, it was a genuine mistake on my end to misquote the case and its wording and I apologize for causing so much trouble and complication as a result of not proof reading.
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Your honor, in regards to these messages, at no point did I mention I used or didn't use GAI to generate in whole or substantial part of this response. Having no sense for proof re...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:32 a.m.
Ok, I'm just going to ask you point-blank: did you use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to partly or wholly generate a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Appointments Clause?
AwesomeAwesome
Ok, I'm just going to ask you point-blank: did you use generative artificial intelligence (GAI) to partly or wholly generate a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on Ap...
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:34 a.m.
Yes, I used GAI (grammarly), no I did not wholly generate a response to the defendant's MTD based on appointments clause
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Yes, I used GAI (grammarly), no I did not wholly generate a response to the defendant's MTD based on appointments clause
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:36 a.m.
Did you partially generate a response?
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:36 a.m.
Yes, because that's a fuction of grammarly
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Yes, because that's a fuction of grammarly
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:37 a.m.
Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 01:39 a.m.
Is that an order to respond too?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Is that an order to respond too?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:39 a.m.
It's a question, in response to your response to the order to show cause.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 01:56 a.m.
Honestly, at most, this would've been a reprimand, had you not repeatedly lied.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:19 a.m.
I apologize ,your honor for the late response, I believe this has become a contempt hearing instead and I would like to request an attorney.(edited)
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
I apologize ,your honor for the late response, I believe this has become a contempt hearing instead and I would like to request an attorney.(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:29 a.m.
Alright, that's fine. Who would you like as counsel?
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, that's fine. Who would you like as counsel?
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:31 a.m.
Separate channel first? Or continue in this one
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:32 a.m.
We're continuing here; I don't anticipate this to take long.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
We're continuing here; I don't anticipate this to take long.(edited)
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:32 a.m.
Are you threatening to hold me in criminal or civil contempt?
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
Are you threatening to hold me in criminal or civil contempt?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:39 a.m.
Well, it'd be punitive, so criminal.
AwesomeAwesome
Well, it'd be punitive, so criminal.
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 02:43 a.m.
I request @polyrabies and @Reapers as attorneys
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-01 02:45 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @Reapers to the case channel.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-01 02:45 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @polyrabies to the case channel.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.
@Awesome You’ll need to appoint an independent prosecutor
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.
If this is criminal contempt
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:47 a.m.
Someone outside the DOJ
impactiiiimpactiii
If this is criminal contempt
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.
No, I won't; it's direct, summary contempt.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.
Your honor respectfully
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.
this is a criminal contempt hearing
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:48 a.m.
My clients entitled to due proccess
AwesomeAwesome
No, I won't; it's direct, summary contempt.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
Fair enough. Some judges consider Discord indirect since it’s not in-game.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
and we request an unbiased justice
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
who will preside
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
over this hearing
impactiiiimpactiii
Fair enough. Some judges consider Discord indirect since it’s not in-game.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
I'm considering it direct.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
since it occurred in the immediate presence of the court.
polyrabiespolyrabies
over this hearing
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:49 a.m.
Your request is denied as meritless.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.
For direct contempt, your client isn't even entitled to a hearing.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.
I'm choosing to give him one.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.
What about my defendant?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.
And this case
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:50 a.m.
Okay but contempt has to be willful
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.
Not sure how this court can even assert and prove that my client actually intentionally misrepresented facts to the court (if he even ever misrepresented facts
impactiiiimpactiii
And this case
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.
We'll proceed once I dispose of this.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 02:51 a.m.
Alright
polyrabiespolyrabies
Okay but contempt has to be willful
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 02:52 a.m.
Your client still hasn't answered my question:
Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (one from said fictitious case)?
AwesomeAwesome
Your client still hasn't answered my question: Ok, how did you (1) come into possession of a copy of a nonexistent case and (2) learn about at least two nonexistent quotations (o...
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:52 a.m.
He's responded to the show cause order.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.
And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.
or just a general question.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 02:53 a.m.
Because he's responded to the actual order for show cause.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:02 a.m.
Regardless, i'd like the record to reflect that:

This court must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DOJ Prosecutor Chickem_Temdie actually committed Contempt of Court.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:03 a.m.
He cannot just be held in contempt over a mere suspicion of wrongdoing
polyrabiespolyrabies
And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 03:19 a.m.
It's a question. Is your client declining to answer?
AwesomeAwesome
It's a question. Is your client declining to answer?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.
Is my client required to answer?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.
If so he will.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:33 a.m.
I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.
polyrabiespolyrabies
I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 03:38 a.m.
He is not required to answer, but it would be in his interests to do so.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 03:39 a.m.
And for the record is your question a demand/lawful order
or just a general question.

I thought this (He is not required to answer) would've been implicit.
AwesomeAwesome
He is not required to answer, but it would be in his interests to do so.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 03:50 a.m.
No he will not be answering the question, he has showed cause to your ORDER already. I'll reiterate, if hes required to answer he will answer.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:41 a.m.
It's beyond me that this Court wants to hold a DOJ Prosecutor in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT over him accidentally adding quotation marks. My client being accused of misquoting something if even true wouldn't of:

1. obstructed court proceedings
2. violated a court order or local rules
3. inhibited the court process

I see no reason for this court to even consider holding him in contempt
polyrabiespolyrabies
It's beyond me that this Court wants to hold a DOJ Prosecutor in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT over him accidentally adding quotation marks. My client being accused of misquoting something if ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:44 a.m.
Your client used generative artificial intelligence, both in this matter and state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee, and then repeatedly lied to the Court instead of coming clean.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:44 a.m.
Respectfully your honor,
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
How on earth can you come to that conclusion?
polyrabiespolyrabies
How on earth can you come to that conclusion?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
Because he cited one nonexistent case and at least two nonexistent quotations.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
If he even did that
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
and literally admitted to it
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
how can that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
that
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:45 a.m.
he used AI
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
This is a out of court statement
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
what relevance
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
does that have?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
I hope you understand, my client has due process rights
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
Your client admitted to using generative AI.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
this is a criminal proceeding
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
In this case?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:46 a.m.
chatroom is admissible; it's no different to him admitting to doing it via social media.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:47 a.m.
It's hearsay
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:47 a.m.
and I will pull up the rules of criminal evidence
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.
a confession is clearly exempt from hearsay
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.
How is it a "confession"
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.
I'm not debating this with you, counselor. It is admissible.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:49 a.m.
I'd hope you'd be open for some reconsideration, because it is quite clearly hearsay per the criminal rules of procedure
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:50 a.m.
And even if it was admissable, the statements have no correlation to this case specifically
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:51 a.m.
It's not against the local rules to use AI even if he was using it
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:51 a.m.
AI is a research tool
AwesomeAwesome
Counselor, I'm going to enter into the record the following excerpt taken from chatroom: 10:12 AM AEST tactical_pancakes: [1] @Chickem_Temdie broski ...
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:55 a.m.
Respectfully, where within this does he ever "admit" hes "using ai"?
polyrabiespolyrabies
I'd hope you'd be open for some reconsideration, because it is quite clearly hearsay per the criminal rules of procedure
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:55 a.m.
It's a statement against interest.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.
Just for the record, the justice presiding over this contempt hearing is quite literally the initial accuser of contempt and is also acting as the fact finder.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.
So I'd once again ask, if you're gonna do a contempt hearing, recuse yourself and provide a impartial justice to preside.
polyrabiespolyrabies
So I'd once again ask, if you're gonna do a contempt hearing, recuse yourself and provide a impartial justice to preside.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:58 a.m.
And, again, your request is meritless and denied.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 04:59 a.m.
You offer no basis for concluding this Court is unable to be impartial, beyond hyperbole and speculation.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.
I'd also to assert that
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.
its quite evident that
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:01 a.m.
the out of court chats u've admitted are hearsay
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.
no exception applies here
AwesomeAwesome
You offer no basis for concluding this Court is unable to be impartial, beyond hyperbole and speculation.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.
You're literally the accuser and the fact finder within this
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.
That's.. how summary contempt works.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:02 a.m.
My client still has due process rights
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:03 a.m.
He has the right to a fair hearing
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:03 a.m.
there's nothing fair about this when the fact finder is also the accuser
polyrabiespolyrabies
there's nothing fair about this when the fact finder is also the accuser
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.
Your authority for this?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.
And none of the allegged conduct even warrants summary action, all it could of warranted was a simple correction
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:04 a.m.
of the legal filing
AwesomeAwesome
Your authority for this?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:06 a.m.
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)
polyrabiespolyrabies
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
That doesn't support your argument.
polyrabiespolyrabies
And none of the allegged conduct even warrants summary action, all it could of warranted was a simple correction
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
Making a mistake is one thing; lying in response to a show cause order is another.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
And how can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he "lied"
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
I have also stated, prior, that had your client simply come clean, this would've been, at most, a reprimand.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
you aren't behind his PC
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:10 a.m.
you cant see if he opened a AI program
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:11 a.m.
and the statement you admitted is inadmissable
polyrabiespolyrabies
and the statement you admitted is inadmissable
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:22 a.m.
Ok, fine. (1) It was not admitted to "prove the truth of the matter asserted," and (2) even if it was (it wasn't; it was introduced as impeachment), it falls within several established exceptions to the hearsay rule, namely it's a (i) statement against interest, and (ii) spontaneous, self-incriminating statement corroborated by other evidence (the record). See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298-99 (1973) ("The hearsay rule, which has long been recognized and respected by virtually every State, is based on experience and grounded in the notion that untrustworthy evidence should not be presented to the triers of fact. Among the most prevalent of these exceptions is the one applicable to declarations against interest — an exception founded on the assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made.”).(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Ok, fine. (1) It was not admitted to "prove the truth of the matter asserted," and (2) even if it was (it wasn't; it was introduced as impeachment), it falls within several establi...(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:24 a.m.
How is it a "self incriminating statement" if it clearly has no nexus or correlation to the ongoing conduct in question
polyrabiespolyrabies
How is it a "self incriminating statement" if it clearly has no nexus or correlation to the ongoing conduct in question
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:25 a.m.
He literally admits, impliedly or otherwise, to using ChatGPT to write his motion.
AwesomeAwesome
He literally admits, impliedly or otherwise, to using ChatGPT to write his motion.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:26 a.m.
He doesn't any reasonable individual can conclude from what you've admitted as "evidence", doesn't actually show him making any direct statements relating to this case, what you've admitted just shows him making a vague response to a statement made by an un related individual who has nothing to do with this case where he never even confirms he used AI in this proceeding.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:27 a.m.
And even if he did use chatgpt to write a motion, where's the issue with that?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:27 a.m.
Chatgpt isnt barred from use by your court room rules or local rules
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:28 a.m.
Simply using chatgpt to write a motion isn't contempt
polyrabiespolyrabies
Simply using chatgpt to write a motion isn't contempt
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:28 a.m.
Again, he's not being held in contempt for merely (alone) using ChatGPT to write the motion; he's being held in contempt for repeatedly lying about it.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.
He's being held in contempt cause you think he lied?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.
How on earth can you conclude he lied
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.
That's all i have to say, it's impossible for anyone here to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the DOJ prosecutor actually LIED and used CHATGPT
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.
He did.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:29 a.m.
It's not a question.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:30 a.m.
Burden of proof exists for a reason, to combat baseless allegations, which is why a charge has to be substantiated, i dont see how you can possibly substantiate with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually LIED and utilised chatgpt in this specific case.
polyrabiespolyrabies
Burden of proof exists for a reason, to combat baseless allegations, which is why a charge has to be substantiated, i dont see how you can possibly substantiate with evidence beyon...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:31 a.m.
Alright. I'm going to find your client in criminal contempt. There is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied; his prior inconsistent statement, viewed in tandem with the record of state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee (and, whilst I'm mentioning it, this matter), leaves no room for reasonable doubt.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:32 a.m.
Okay we will appeal to the supreme court requesting a stay
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:32 a.m.
of up to 72 hours
polyrabiespolyrabies
Okay we will appeal to the supreme court requesting a stay
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
A stay of what? I haven't even imposed a sentence yet.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
A stay of the sentence
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
which you are
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
gonna impose
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
There isn't one.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:33 a.m.
At least not at this point.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:34 a.m.
Okay when can we expect
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 05:34 a.m.
a proper ruling
AwesomeAwesome
Alright. I'm going to find your client in criminal contempt. There is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied; his prior inconsistent statement, viewed in tandem with the r...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:56 a.m.
I’ll enter a full (paper) order soonish.
polyrabiespolyrabies
a proper ruling
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:00 a.m.
Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge himself (by that, I mean I’ll enter a sentence of unconditional discharge, which wouldn’t be recorded) of contempt (however, this would not preclude lesser sanctions) by submitting to the Court (1) a written, sincere, unassisted (external or otherwise) apology; and (2) a truthful explanation, without omissions made, for his prior conduct.

This one-time offer expires Saturday, February 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., 5 months ago.
(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.
Huh
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.
This is criminal contempt
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.
Not civil
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:01 a.m.
How can he purge himself of a criminal conviction
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:02 a.m.
Can you just explain the offer to me
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:02 a.m.
What does this “purging” actually result in
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:03 a.m.
You’ve already found him in criminal contempt
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:03 a.m.
So what is he actually gonna purge himself of
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:04 a.m.
By purge, I mean I’ll enter a sentence of unconditional discharge.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:05 a.m.
But he’ll still have a criminal record
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:05 a.m.
Regardless we’re not taking any offers or admitting guilt of anything because frankly my clients done nothing wrong
polyrabiespolyrabies
But he’ll still have a criminal record
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.
no..
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.
So can you explain this to me
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.
You’ve found my client in criminal contempt right
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:07 a.m.
Which means he’s been found guilty of a crime
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.
well, not an in-game record anyways.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.
Okay but he’s still been
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.
Found guilty of a crime
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:08 a.m.
How can you purge a conviction
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:12 a.m.
I can’t record a conviction in-game if it’s an unconditional discharge, unless I did something wacky.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:12 a.m.
Well my client would of still been found guilty of a crime
polyrabiespolyrabies
Well my client would of still been found guilty of a crime
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.
Well, it’s up to your client, of course, but I would suggest talking it over with him, as the offer is quite generous.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.
It’s not generous
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.
It’s forcing him to admit guilt because there’s no evidence to suggest guilt anyway therefore
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.
We aren’t accepting
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:21 a.m.
Poly just go talk to your client
polyrabiespolyrabies
We aren’t accepting
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
Courts going to need your client to affirm that
TobyToby
Courts going to need your client to affirm that
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
They don’t he’s not taking a plea deal
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
It’s not.. a plea deal.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
He’s being given a offer which I can decline
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
As his counsel
polyrabiespolyrabies
They don’t he’s not taking a plea deal
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:22 a.m.
I never said it was that
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
But your acting as if his response is required
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
When reality is it isn’t
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
But I think the judge would like to know that your client knows what's going in
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
On
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
Difference between a need and a want
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:23 a.m.
Up to the judge, purely a suggestion
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.
Also might I remind you it is ultimately up to your client to decline or accept offers
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.
He can deny it on behalf of his client, but the offer stands.
TobyToby
Also might I remind you it is ultimately up to your client to decline or accept offers
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.
Not true
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge h...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:25 a.m.
cc: @Krispy Chicken Tender
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:27 a.m.
Just so my client is aware the offer will not change the fact that this court has found him guilty of a crime
polyrabiespolyrabies
Not true
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.
I'm not carrying this on further but holy lord yes it is. You can reject offers on his behalf but it is up to him to ultimately decide
TobyToby
I'm not carrying this on further but holy lord yes it is. You can reject offers on his behalf but it is up to him to ultimately decide
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.
Sure it is, but you're wording it and implying that he needs to affirm every denial of an offer himeslf
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.
which isnt true
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:31 a.m.
I am his counsel I can decline an offer on his behalf
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.
thats the bottom line of this, the presiding judge agrees
polyrabiespolyrabies
Sure it is, but you're wording it and implying that he needs to affirm every denial of an offer himeslf
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.
No, I'm purely saying that I'm sure the court would appreciate your client showing he understands what's going on here other then his counsel
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.
Anyways nothing further
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.
Let's not flood
Toby
Toby 2025-02-01 07:32 a.m.
Stop typing
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:33 a.m.
You worded it as if it was a requirement for my client to affirm it, that's my last response so the record can have an accurate reflection of whats happening.
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, here’s what I’ve decided to do: I’m going to give your client the proverbial keys to his metaphorical cell. If your client so wishes, I’ll allow him, this once, to purge h...(edited)
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.
Alright, to clarify the offer: (1) no conviction will be recorded, and (2) a sentence of unconditional discharge will be entered.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.
I can’t physically record a conviction.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:36 a.m.
Okay just to make sure so we're both on the same page
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:37 a.m.
your "purging" will not change the fact that you've found him guilty of contempt of court?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.
And when you say "no conviction will be recorded", is the ruling that you'll publicise in rulings for over 1000 server members to see asserting that my Client has been convicted of a crime not count as a record?
polyrabiespolyrabies
your "purging" will not change the fact that you've found him guilty of contempt of court?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.
It won’t change the fact that he was in contempt; no conviction will be recorded, and a sentence of unconditional discharge will enter.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.
Or will you not post a ruling?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:38 a.m.
Just so we're aware here
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.
Well, if I enter a sentence of unconditional discharge, without a conviction recorded, I hardly see much point in writing a several page document.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.
because a record refers to anything officially produced by this court reflecting my clients conviction
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:39 a.m.
So records of his convinction will still exist?
polyrabiespolyrabies
So records of his convinction will still exist?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
Like I said, it won’t change the fact that your client was in contempt. If someone was so inclined, they could scroll through hundreds of messages and find the Court’s show cause order, but I think that unlikely, to say the least.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
So you wouldn't
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
post a ruling
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
no.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
in rulings
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
Okay, so what am I gonna appeal then
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
like I said, no point writing a several page document if I’m entering an order of unconditional discharge.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
are you not gonna
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
put the order holding him in contempt
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
in papper
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
it’d be paperless
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
paper
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
Okay, just confused cause you
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:43 a.m.
originally said you'd put it in paper
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:44 a.m.
That’s if I impose anything but unconditional discharge.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:44 a.m.
If I’m imposing unconditional discharge, I hardly see much point in a paper ruling, like I said.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:45 a.m.
Okay so
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:45 a.m.
just so the records clear,
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:46 a.m.
this offer would not actually remedy any issue, provide any education to prevent any future contemptuous behaviour if any ever took place, seek to prevent future contemptuous?
AwesomeAwesome
it’d be paperless
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:46 a.m.
Paperless orders are ordinarily (at least in my chambers) submitted in the case channel and nowhere else.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:46 a.m.
and the offer falls upon you wanting my client to write a letter admiting guilt, and you basically will let him off scott free?
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:46 a.m.
Okay.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:47 a.m.
I'd question why he was ever held in contempt, if you're willing to practically let him off like nothing ever happened, aslong as he "admits guilt" and writes you a letter.
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:47 a.m.
But i understand
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:47 a.m.
the terms are (1) a written, sincere, unassisted (external or otherwise) apology; and (2) a truthful explanation, without omissions made, for his prior conduct, and the court’s entry of unconditional discharge wouldn’t preclude lesser sanctions (such as reprimand) for the separate issue of the use of AI.(edited)
polyrabies
polyrabies 2025-02-01 07:48 a.m.
Interesting, we understand, but our stance right now is we are declining the offer this may change but thats our stance, we are not admitting guilt, its still our position that my client hasn't done anything wrong and hasnt committed contempt of court
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 07:48 a.m.
ok
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-01 10:17 a.m.
@Awesome Your honor, if this matter has concluded, the state would like to respond to the dismissal motions shortly and we ask that you no longer consider Mr. Chickem’s motions as he is no longer with us at the DoJ unfortunately
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 10:19 a.m.
Why should you get a surreply if I didn’t even file a reply?
impactiiiimpactiii
Why should you get a surreply if I didn’t even file a reply?
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-01 10:25 a.m.
We’re not asking for a surreply, we’re asking for a reply to the 2 motions since we’re saying we no longer want Chickem’s responses to be considered as he is no longer with the DoJ
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 10:58 a.m.
You’re asking for a reply after you already responded(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 10:58 a.m.
That’s a surreply
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 10:58 a.m.
But it’s a surreply without me even having filed a reply
Krispy Chicken Tender
Krispy Chicken Tender 2025-02-01 03:07 p.m.
cc: @Awesome
Krispy Chicken TenderKrispy Chicken Tender
cc: @Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 03:16 p.m.
Alright, as you’ve fulfilled all of the requirements, I’ll enter unconditional discharge and so order.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 03:16 p.m.
Do not do this again.
AwesomeAwesome
Alright, as you’ve fulfilled all of the requirements, I’ll enter unconditional discharge and so order.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 04:44 p.m.
When will there be a ruling on the two remaining MTDs?
AwesomeAwesome used
/remove
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-01 05:04 p.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has removed @polyrabies from the case channel.
impactiiiimpactiii
When will there be a ruling on the two remaining MTDs?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-01 05:04 p.m.
Soonish.
AwesomeAwesome
Soonish.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-01 07:53 p.m.
Tonight or tomorrow do you think?
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 12:29 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @actxrz to the case channel.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-02-02 12:31 a.m.
@Awesome can you add derogatoryyy
actxrz
actxrz 2025-02-02 12:31 a.m.
actxrzactxrz
Click to see attachment.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 05:09 a.m.
In the future, do not submit a joint NOA.
AwesomeAwesome used
/add
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-02-02 05:09 a.m.
Case Modified
@Awesome has added @dero to the case channel.
impactiiiimpactiii
MR. INCIPLES’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF STATE ATTORNEY CHICKEM_TEMDIE CC: @Awesome @Krispy Chicken Tender
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:21 p.m.
PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT OF CHICKEM_TEMDIE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Based on the Unlawful Appointment of Chickem_Tendie.

Firstly, Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2350 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring), is not remotely persuasive authority, because it is an unprompted, unjoined concurrence in an entirely separate matter altogether.

Next, Defendant cites Mayfl. Const. art. VI, § 2 (the "Appointments Clause"), namely that "[a]ny officer appointed by him shall be in the Attorney General's Office," but ignores its plaintext. We are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters," United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931), and the Court therefore construes each term in accordance with its "normal and ordinary ... meaning." Id. Its normal and ordinary meaning is clear; any officer appointed by the Attorney General is and shall be for as long as his appointment in the Attorney General's Office. That's it. 3 M.S.C. 1 § 8701 authorizes the Attorney General to structure his department "as [he] deems fit, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the State." The Attorney General dividing "his office" into three divisions, namely (1) the (internally referenced) Office of the Attorney General, (2) Criminal Justice Division, and (3) Special Proceedings Division, is in no way inconsistent with, or contrary to, the Appointments Clause nor 3 M.S.C. 1 § 8701.

IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion to Dismiss Based on Unlawful Appointment of Chickem_Temdie be, and it hereby is, DENIED IN FULL.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Mersea, Mayflower, February 3, 2024.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @impactiii @Inciples / @Reapers @dero @actxrz
impactiiiimpactiii
The appointment one is going to be interesting because there was a similar issue to this one raised where the real life U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel's "cr...
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:24 p.m.
@Awesome This is why I referenced the Trump case
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:24 p.m.
You probably didn't see it because of the Chickem_Temdie debacle
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:24 p.m.
Let us proceed to the next one!
impactiiiimpactiii
The appointment one is going to be interesting because there was a similar issue to this one raised where the real life U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel's "cr...
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:25 p.m.
Ah. Both Thomas and Cannon were, to my knowledge, widely panned as being entirely incorrect; Thomas's concurrence also makes no sense, at least in the matter that it was given.(edited)
AwesomeAwesome
Ah. Both Thomas and Cannon were, to my knowledge, widely panned as being entirely incorrect; Thomas's concurrence also makes no sense, at least in the matter that it was given.(edited)
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:26 p.m.
Maybe we'll find out since the FL dismissal is still being appealed
impactiiiimpactiii
Maybe we'll find out since the FL dismissal is still being appealed
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:26 p.m.
No, it isn't.
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:26 p.m.
this chicken guy is a fool
AwesomeAwesome
No, it isn't.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:26 p.m.
Trump was dismissed as a defendant but the other two defendants are still on
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:26 p.m.
Unless Jack Smith's resignation terminated everything
impactiiiimpactiii
Trump was dismissed as a defendant but the other two defendants are still on
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:27 p.m.
No, like, the acting US Attorney (a Trump appointee) dropped the appeal, as far as I'm aware.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:27 p.m.
Really
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:27 p.m.
so they concede on the SC issue then?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:27 p.m.
That's a case I wouldn't back out of
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:27 p.m.
Just to resolve that one question
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:28 p.m.
Thomas and Cannon were considered wrong though because they both ignored Nixon
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:29 p.m.
Cannon called it dictum and Thomas said that the Court at the time didn't properly analyze it so... yeah, dicta
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:29 p.m.
It's a weird mess
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:29 p.m.
Since his motion is dismissed, to where do we proceed now, your honor?
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:29 p.m.
Thomas just wanted to pay homage to Scalia in Morrison v. Olson
impactiiiimpactiii
Thomas just wanted to pay homage to Scalia in Morrison v. Olson
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:30 p.m.
God bless Scalia and all of them
ReapersReapers
Since his motion is dismissed, to where do we proceed now, your honor?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:30 p.m.
There's 1 more motion left, which will take longer for me to address because it's, like, 11 pages.
AwesomeAwesome
There's 1 more motion left, which will take longer for me to address because it's, like, 11 pages.
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:30 p.m.
I'm assuming that already has a response or the allocated time has otherwise elapsed?
AwesomeAwesome
There's 1 more motion left, which will take longer for me to address because it's, like, 11 pages.
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:31 p.m.
In that case, will the state not be allowed to give a response in lieu of Chickem’s disgraceful one?
derodero
I'm assuming that already has a response or the allocated time has otherwise elapsed?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-02 07:31 p.m.
@impactiii Would Defendant consent to both responses of the State being struck, as likely entirely AI-generated.
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:31 p.m.
If not I get it, but it's worth a shot
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:31 p.m.
I've always had a grudge against AI users
AwesomeAwesome
@impactiii Would Defendant consent to both responses of the State being struck, as likely entirely AI-generated.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:32 p.m.
No. And if the State were allowed a "second reply" then I would incorporate my opposition to the State's motion for leave to re-file in state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:33 p.m.
But we’re technically not asking for a second reply, we’re asking for Chickem’s reply to be struck due to it violating the bar rules of professional conduct
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:33 p.m.
and we will submit a legitimate one in a timely manner
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:33 p.m.
:👍: I will hope that this chicken guy at least addressed the arguments in your motion.
ReapersReapers
and we will submit a legitimate one in a timely manner
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:33 p.m.
No, it's okay
AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2025-02-02 07:34 p.m.
I'm assuming the SA Chicken was let go hence why new comers are here for the State
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:34 p.m.
It's not the end of the world. We hired this guy so we ought to pay the price of losing for his poor work
AdamC_2001AdamC_2001
I'm assuming the SA Chicken was let go hence why new comers are here for the State
dero
dero 2025-02-02 07:34 p.m.
Absolutely
derodero
It's not the end of the world. We hired this guy so we ought to pay the price of losing for his poor work
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:44 p.m.
Yes but he hasn’t wronged us, he wronged the people of state
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 07:45 p.m.
He didn’t grant the state its due rights accorded by the bar rules of professional conduct
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:46 p.m.
Well it is your job to competently prosecute my client
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:46 p.m.
You're right that you wronged the State
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:46 p.m.
But we were also wronged
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-02 07:46 p.m.
Much time was drawn away from pretrial to deal with that matter
impactiiiimpactiii
No. And if the State were allowed a "second reply" then I would incorporate my opposition to the State's motion for leave to re-file in state-of-mayflower-v-adolobee
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-03 05:45 a.m.
I won’t allow the State to do so over the Defendant’s objections; however, I thought it prudent to ask.
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 12:18 p.m.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 12:18 p.m.
Same ask here. @Awesome
impactiiiimpactiii
Click to see attachment.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 12:22 p.m.
I believe we're below the threshold of flagrant misconduct for with prejudice, but enough valuable time has been lost and much distraction has occurred to elicit dismissal without prejudice.
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-03 12:43 p.m.
impactiiiimpactiii
Click to see attachment.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:22 a.m.
@Reapers ?
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-04 05:22 a.m.
(Is this the State's position here as well)
AwesomeAwesome
@Reapers ?
Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-04 09:13 a.m.
The State and the defendant's attorney have agreed to possibly have a DPA for this case and we are currently working on drafting it
impactiii
impactiii 2025-02-04 03:06 p.m.
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
CC: @Inciples @Reapers @Awesome @AdamC_2001
impactiiiimpactiii
DEFERRED PROSECUTION AGREEMENT CC: @Inciples @Reapers @Awesome @AdamC_2001
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-05 11:01 p.m.
I’ll review shortly.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-02-06 04:37 p.m.
@Awesome
actxrzactxrz
@Awesome
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-09 03:01 p.m.
I’ll enter an order today. Apologies for the delay; I’ve had other matters to tend to.
actxrz
actxrz 2025-02-09 06:01 p.m.
Alright, thank you.
Awesome
Awesome 2025-02-11 10:49 a.m.
MINUTE ORDER

The Court notes the Deferred Prosecution Agreement entered into by the State and the Defendant, Inciples. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this matter be, and it hereby is, STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court.

/s/ AwesomePIays
Mayflower District Judge

cc: @actxrz / @impactiii @Inciples / @Prothonotary's Office
Exported 619 messages